The problem with the questionable character(s) in Obama's closet is that no such effort is being made to open up the whole "can of worms" the digging into to the wierd events and workings of the Clinton clique. How can we get all stirred up about Obama's former preacher, even as Hillary is trying to pawn off such preposterous ideas as her readiness for "the phone to ring at 3a.m."?? The whole idea of her 8 years of experience in the White House needs to be qualified in that it was limited to her function in the presidental "suite" after dark. She was given the challenge of health care early in Bill's 2nd term--and with all her "ready on day one" experience, she completely fumbled the health care ball! If the next President need to have experience in the presidential suite--she may be qualified uniquely--otherwise--don't make me laugh!

Preaching found in the prophetic books of the Jewish Scriptures�€”e.g. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Micah, etc., where these prophets explicitly spoke of YHWH�€™s condemnation of their own country.
Jesus, Paul, and John were explicitly critical of the leadership of their own country�€”ruled by Roman leaders (with the collusion of Jewish leaders). The Apocalypse pronounces damnation on that corrupt political system.
By the way, the audiences for the prophets, Jesus, Paul, and John, were not pleased with what they were being told about their country�€”some were angry enough to kill the messenger!

America is the biggest bully on the plaground; And, not the nicest. Americans find Reverend Wright's comments offensive because the truth is ugly and it is painful to realize their history books are full of lies. The education and entertainment of their lifetimes are rooted in the belief that all blond-haired, blue-eyed males are automatically heroes; and, that America is a benign, peace-loving nation that does no wrong in this world. That we only ever go to war to protect American interests abroad. When we, as a people realize the truth, we must also accept our responsibility for the ruination that we have wrought on the world. Just like whites can no longer say that they haven't benefitted from slavery.

To those Whites who Claim to Have Had No Complicity in Slavery...

When the subject of race and slavery are mentioned, most whites will quickly say, �€œI didn't have anything to do with slavery, why should my tax money help pay to level the playing field for blacks?�€�
Those people are not thinking! If they were, they would realize that all the benefits that accrue to them as Caucasians were achieved through slavery and discrimination. Here are some examples:

More Thoughts on White Privilege
�€œSo, I cannot, and indeed should not, feel either guilty or proud about being white, because it is a state of being I have no control over. However, as a member of a society--and especially as a privileged member of society--I have an obligation not simply to enjoy that privilege that comes with being white but to study and understand it, and work toward a more just world in which such unearned privilege is eliminated. �€œ Robert JohnsonPhD http://www.dickshovel.com/priv2.html

It is true that voters always get eactly what they deserve. It is also true that when you dislike someone, you will always find reason to continue disliking them, no matter what they do or say.

From the time of slavery, blacks were not allowed to attend white churches, so they created their own churches. Historically, black churches were much more than sources of gospel learning. They were meeting places, food banks, clinics and a forum to air their grievances. Sermons, of necessity, took on the challenge of explaining the cruel realities of slave life.

Over time, from then until now, preachers had to learn to speak from the depths of misery to say, "I know what you're feeling and I want you to know that we're all in this together." The language is not always pretty. To people unaccustomed to the historical roots of the black church; or, who can't see anything wrong with the black condition; it will even sound ugly.

But, feeling resentment is all the more reason that we need to discuss these issues, once and for all.

On the other hand, we can, once again sweep our hypocracies under the rug and fail to create the perfect union that we are always trying to force on others.

sugoi22: I have enjoyed your post and the points you made therein. Many of the things you mention do exist and there are very disturbing. There's still a lot of discrimination in this country, and a lot is directed to black people.
This being said, however, I find it very strange and frankly disturbing that a politician introducing himself as a unifier and someone who transcend race would attend and actively support for almost his entire adult life a church which preaches racial animosity, spread vicious lies and rumors and nominates an avowed racist and antisemite, Louis Farrakhan, as a "man of the year".
Possibly many in the black community believe that the AIDS virus was introduced by the government, just as many here in New Orleans believe the government blew up the levees. But for a man of Rev. Wright's stature and position of leadership in the community to say it as if it were true, and for another who wishes to be president of the United States to hear him and acquiesce by his silence?
If nothing else it cast a verious serious doubt on his whole persona, and to me it paints him in his true colors, and they're not red, white and blue.

While I find Rev. Wright's reported statements disgusting, I am even more offended by his saying these thoughts supposedly as a "man of God". His concern should be on what his God will have to say to him one day.

Reverend Wright was paraphrasing the Old Testament, which as we remember from Sunday School is full of God's Wrath. The God Damn America phrase was taken from the warning of God Damning Ancient Israel,"for trying to pose as God, for trying to pose as Supreme."

There is a youtube clip ["CNN Finally Puts Jeremiah Wright's Full Sermon In Context"] that needs to be seen by all who have only viewed Fox News's irresponsible 30 second loop. It is so ridiculous that this Pastor is being portrayed as an anti-American. He himself is a US Marine who served this country valliantly.

Black churches are known for their hyperbolic theatrics. It's not my type of church, but hey, to each their own. When I first visited a Black church near my university in the Bible Belt South, my roomates and I were amused and entertained by how dramatic they were about everything. They use this approach in addressing all topics. In the past 8 years, these churches across America have devoted a greater amount of time condemning the destrcuctive policies of the Bush Administration.

The Republicans by any sane measure should have no chance at winning the White House again in November. But with all of the manufactured noise surrounding this campaign, the focus has moved away from the issues that really matter. People have actually been deluded into thinking that John McCain would be a good President for America.

How ironic would it be that the Clinton Administration, in all their perceived glory, was not able to elect their presumed protege, VP Al Gore, while the Bush Administration with all of their undeniable failings were able to put their protege, John McCain in office? What does this say about the mind of America?

As for Barack Obama, this Pastor issue has not changed my belief in him one bit. I honestly feel that Senator Obama's rise to national prominence as the front runner for President of the United States has had a positive effect upon the bitter views of his Pastor. I applaud Obama for not running away from his Church. Change starts at home.

Enough Is Enough!From the reference to the potential presidential nominee as the �€œyoung black senator�€� as opposed to the "aging" or �€œsenior white female senator�€� to the inference that Senator Barack Obama was not as clear about certain facts, enough is enough!In a time when people do not read or have the attention span to listen to a speech which did last approximately 44 minutes and so therefore are likely to rely on sound bytes or rhetoric posted in periodicals such as the Economist, enough is enough. The Senator, from Illinois was very clear, very forthcoming about his relationship with his former pastor yet you have the audacity to present it as anything less than that. You have the audacity to present as if you are shedding light on some half truth previously presented. You present to the reader the very truths that the Senator himself presented yet you do so with a tone that suggest otherwise. You have just committed the error that you falsely accused Senator Barack Obama of. The shame is on you. Tisha SaccarelliOkemos, MI

The 'Wright Affair' had obviously caused some uneasy undercurrents in the minds of the American voters for the coming presidential election. Even for a fully democratised nation such ad the United States, its peoples were unduly jolted by Rev. Wright's opinion on the racial issue between the Blacks and the Whites. By innuendo, the fact that Rev. Wright happens to be Mr.Obama's "old uncle", invariably invokes another public opinion to re-evaluate the credibility of Mr.Obama to contest in the presidential election. In the final analysis, this is but part and parcel of the electioneering process in which any politicians aiming to assume high offices have to subject themselves for the most stringent scrutiny by the peoples. When the due diligence is done, the truth of the matter will emerge.

Hervada, while I personally support Rev. Wright, my point was that a respected publication should use proper titles for all individuals. Irregardless of my opinion of David Duke, among others, if he graduated with a doctorate from an accredited university then his title is Dr. Duke. Academic titles do not and should not take into account popular opinion. In the same vein, I would address anyone who graduated from seminary as Reverand, regardless of whether I agree with their interpretation of the Bible. Perhaps, we are best dispensing with titles altogether; however, until that day arrives,The Economist would do well to follow accepted conventions dictating the proper use of titles.

No, Mr. Hervada, I cannot provide the URL. Those were sincere questions posed by an agnostic who, not surprisingly, thinks that religion and religious beliefs should have no place in politics or in any affairs of state. Anywhere. Ever.

Hervada and others that are prepared to chastise Obama for associating with the "hateful" minister, please do read this link below and ask yourselves why there is nothing in the media about it; infact, you tell journalists about this link and they just ignore it like there's no analogy to draw here - I think the disregard of the story in this link smacks of two things: GROSS HYPOCRISY and FEAR OF THE REPUBLICANS (remember John Kerry's swiftboat dismissal and compare with McCain the sudden new war hero)

I think that sugoi22�€™s remarks about the proper manner of referring to Rev Wright (he says that we the proper manner would be Rev. Dr. Wright) a somewhat shaky defensive element. Most unhappily, having an academic degree or two doesn�€™t make one a good person, nor is it a vaccine against being a bigot.

Take for instance the case of David Duke, Great Dragon (or something like that) of the Ku Klux Klan who has been a tenured teacher in History (of all subjects) and has a PHD. I do not mean God forbid, that Dr. Duke and Rev. Wright share many things beyond their common opposition to the Iraq war , a vocal dislike of Israel and a penchant for resounding rhetoric and bizarre theories about what really happened in the WTC on 9/11 2001. Besides, I am quite confident that Rev. Wright�€™s tenets regarding race are not identical to Dr. Duke�€™s, avowedly a WHITE supremacist.

Anyhow, I wonder what people would say about a presidential candidate who had faithfully befriended Dr. Duke for twenty years and, say, had him as a witness in his wedding.

On the other hand, to attack the Pope for this or that, as Mr. Campos does, is it really relevant in the Rev. Wright case? I mean, l haven�€™t heard of the Pope on Youtube asking God to damn America. Can Mr. Campos provide the URL?

Since Mr. Obama has only provided the American people with smiles and slogans, his undoing via Rev. Wright (there are definitely more stories in the woodwork) is just what he deserves.He thought that he could cruise through the elections on his charisma. He was wrong. His wife is one very angry woman who cannot hide her feelings. Rev. Wright is a very angry man but more importantly he has led his church on a path of hatred which will be the undoing of his "nephew".I was so hopeful --- and now Barack Obama proves a WORSE than allthe other candidates put together.HEARTBREAKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It would be a service to the readers of this respected publication to explain what exactly is the meaning of being one's pastor in the US. Are pastors as powerful a figure as to dictate a presidential candidate's opinions? Why should a member of a congregation be blamed for a preacher's opinion, be it well thought out or just plain dumb? I wonder if Catholics feel responsible for Pope Benedict's recent declarations on the actual existence of Hell, new kinds of capital sins, and other assorted anachronisms.

Mr. Doering, it should go without saying that the scrutinized figures to which you are referring are usually not forced into the public eye; it simply comes with the occupation they willingly choose. Rev. Wright cannot seriously expect to have these sorts of comments left alone. Neither can Mr. Obama expect to not be scrutinized for being so closely associated with Rev. Wright; he is running for President, voluntarily. Both of these individuals have chosen occupations which thrust them into public discourse, they are therefore responsible for what they say and can fairly be scrutinized when they make incendiary comments.

I Agree with sugoi22 on Reverend Wright's Speech, I do not consider his words Hateful. just Anger and Disappointment. everyone has moments when we say things outside of the Politically Correct Zone. most of us are lucky enough to be private citizens, instead of public figures who are scrutinized under the media microscope.

Irregardless of this publication�€™s view of Rev. Wright, it is inexcusable to refer to him as Mr. Wright. The man is an ordained minister and has earned a doctorate degree, as well as receiving honorary degrees; therefore, his proper title is the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright Jr., but Rev. Wright would suffice. I did not expect this sort of wanton disrespect from such an esteemed publication. You can use proper terms for dictators and terrorists alike; therefore, I cannot understand why it is hard to do so now. Also, the cover of your print edition is erroneous; there are no priests in the United Church of Christ denomination. Second, how can you be sure that Rev. Wright does not represent the black church? Have you interviewed scholars on the African-American church tradition?

Also, while Rev. Wright�€™s comments may not sit well with some, he is not a hatemonger, as has been suggested. I have often heard him say that �€œEveryone your color is not your friend, and everyone who�€™s not your color is not your enemy.�€� However, embracing and recognizing the value of other ethic groups does not mean that one must ignore the wrongs inflicted on their own. Also, contrary to popular opinion, racism was not rendered extinct by the civil rights movement. I have degrees from esteemed institutions on both sides of the Atlantic; however, I have to worry about whether I will be discriminated against because my name is �€œtoo black�€�. It is a reality that black parents have to worry about their children�€™s future job prospects when selecting a name. While I do not necessarily believe that the government introduced HIV/AIDS into America, I have heard in said countless times in my community. Is it such a stretch to understand why people would believe that the same government responsible for the Tuskegee experiments introduced HIV? Why is it hard to see why some would believe that the FBI introduced heroin into the black community when the blatantly racist rhetoric and policies of J. Edgar Hoover is a matter of public record. The FBI actively tried to discredit Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. because he represented a supposed threat to the country. The history of the US government using blacks for scientific experiments and aggressively seeking to destroy black leadership is evident to all who bother to look. When you cannot drive a nice car without being pulled over or being tailed by a police officer, you will be angry. If your hard earned accomplishments and accolades can be belittled because someone assumes you are the product of Affirmative Action, then there will be anger. When you grow up knowing that you have to be twice as good to be considered equal, there will be pain and anger. Sen. Obama, as well as the majority of blacks in this country, knows this sort of anger. This does not assume hate for other races nor does it rule out meaningful relationships with other groups, it simply means we live in a nation of contradictions that can inspire intense pain and anger. It also does not mean you hate your country--Rev. Wright served his country in the military, as well as countless others who speak against injustice. Why is it a wrong to commune with those who can relate to your frustrations and celebrate your accomplishments? Perhaps the real issue is not that some people think like Rev. Wright, especially since the same sort of thoughts have been echoed in black literature and music, but rather that it is not just the poor and uneducated that ascribe to it. There seems to be a belief that a change in income assumes a change in views and a sort of selective amnesia. Therefore, it can be disturbing that educated and successful black men and women can be so angry. It can be scary to believe that some of those in boardrooms, courtrooms, and possibly in the cubicle next to you do not believe that racism is a twentieth century relic.

In America we have a long tradition of knowing that our country is imperfect, but persecuting all those who dare say it aloud. This type of knee jerk opposition to all things that do not mesh with popular opinion is precisely why we have not come as far as we would like to think.

Fear always results in mud slinging and the media is feeding that fear. When will we as nation stop relating every situation as a race issue? You would think in this the 21st century the issue of race wouldn�€™t cause such a divide. Every time we rehash the race issue it�€™s like pouring salt on an open wound. When is enough, enough lets stop the madness. We all have to rise above the past it is our history we can�€™t change it let�€™s create a new legacy for this country, a legacy of unity, acceptance. Our nation can only advance to the next level when we focus on creating a nation that live true to �€œOne Nation Under God�€� a nation that�€™s not divided by two words White, Black. Our children deserve it and desire it, let�€™s give them what they�€™ll need to survive.

I have been very disappointed in the media coverage of Obama's speech. While his speech was an advanced analysis of the current state of race relations in America with historical pretext, all the mainstream media can do is debate sound bytes of the speech. I turned to the economist, hopeful for more advanced reporting on Obama's speech but only got more of the same. I find the Economist to be an invaluable news source, but was sorely disappointed with this article.